Re: 30+ reasons why X-Win32 is Better than Cygwin/X

[Chris Green <chris at areti dot co dot uk>]

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 06:30:35PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:19:18PM -0500, Joseph Miller wrote:
> >I recently received a list entitled "30+ Reasons Why X-Win32 is Better than 
> >Cygwin/X".  I don't know enough at the moment (though I am learning) about 
> >the Cygwin/X server to be able to understand some of the reasons.  I have 
> >already created XWinLogon (http://www.calcmaster.net/visual-c++/xwinlogon/) 
> >and I am working to work on the Cygwin/X server so that all 30+ reasons will 
> >go away.  Can someone please explain the following:
> 
> Out of curiousity, where did you get this list?  Was it something that
> you asked for or something that was sent to you without asking?
> 
> For those who don't know, Harold Hunt (the former main developer for
> Cygwin/X) now works for the company who provides X-Win32.
> 
I used X-Win32 for many years (like three or four years) before
switching to Cygwin-X.  For my use there is little to choose between
the two of them, I simply use the X-server to display my Linux desktop
on my Win2k computer.

The *main* reason for me switching from X-Win32 to Cygwin/X was simply
cost.  X-Win32 was originally very reasonably priced for a single user
licence (around $50-$60 if I remember) but is now *way* more than that
and upgrades are hardly cheap either.  I think it will cost $100 a
year or more now to keep it up to date.

Cygwin/X is a bit more hassle to set up than X-Win32, it's not quite
so 'smooth and professional' but it works as well and, for me anyway,
the cut and paste between Win2k and Linux works better (maybe X-Win32
has caught up on this front).X-Win32 is Better than

Of the commercial X servers X-Win32 was by far the best that I could
find at around $100 or less when I first looked several years ago.

-- 
Chris Green (chris@areti.co.uk)

    "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."